We all know them. We all hate them. They are generally overdone, completely biased, or so vague they border on the edge of pointlessness (or toppled over said edge). Yes, I'm talking about those "Is Linux ready for the desktop" articles. Still, this one is different.

Just a note: When they talk about Qt or Gtk instabilities, I think are referring to API rather than implementation. So, basically, it all works well, but you never know when the compatibility will brake and force you to update the applications relaying on the libraries.
Of course, it's not that dramatic. Qt4 did break the compatibility with Qt3, but with a very good reason. It became much better. It's always a battle between progress and convenience.

Just a note: When they talk about Qt or Gtk instabilities, I think are referring to API rather than implementation. So, basically, it all works well, but you never know when the compatibility will brake and force you to update the applications relaying on the libraries.

Which is a *really* odd thing to say, given Gtk+ at least has been maintaining stable API and ABI since about 2002.

Which is a *really* odd thing to say, given Gtk+ at least has been maintaining stable API and ABI since about 2002.

I didn't know that, because I find both Gtk and Gnome ugly (both the code and the looks), so I don't follow their development. I like Qt. (Note that I don't want to start a flame war here. I know that there are a lot of people who like Gtk and Gnome, and I respect that.)